does perfection exist?
- Thread starter espoirpaz
- Start date
-
- Tags
- exist perfection
Yes, perfection does seem to exist in the realm of the abstract, in the form of ideals. In which case we need to ask ourselves, what does this realm entail? Could it be that in this realm "other" entities -- including a "perfect being" such as God -- dwell? That would seem to fit the bill for a perfect Creator who, is for the most part unknowable, except in the "abstract sense."espoirpaz said:
Or, let's just say perfection doesn't exist. Then why do we feel the need to better ourselves and apsire towards it?
I think there are two ways perfection can be defined. Perfection can be something that is complete, that is whole. It can also imply purity, having nothing wrong.
Based on the second definition, God could not exist, because there are many things wrong with Him. God would be an ideal, perfect creature, that should be pure, but He would have created man because he wanted to. Wants are of an impure nature, making him have an impure quality.
I do not see it possible for abstract ideas to be complete or perfect. I see completeness as being like infinity. You can always push further because there is no end. However, in the material world, I think one could draw a perfect circle. The probability of drawing a perfect circle would be small, but it is possible.
Based on the second definition, God could not exist, because there are many things wrong with Him. God would be an ideal, perfect creature, that should be pure, but He would have created man because he wanted to. Wants are of an impure nature, making him have an impure quality.
I do not see it possible for abstract ideas to be complete or perfect. I see completeness as being like infinity. You can always push further because there is no end. However, in the material world, I think one could draw a perfect circle. The probability of drawing a perfect circle would be small, but it is possible.
What's the point in being God without having created anything? What's the point in being God without creating the ability to acknowledge God for who He is? In which case how else could He ever be acknowledged except through the capacity of free will (man's) and, "imperfection."espoirpaz said:
By the way, I don't think perfection is possible in the material world.
And these are not immutable laws? ... And what do you think "instituted" these laws?Yahweh said:
Near as I can tell it must have something to do with consciousness, otherwise how could I -- except through the capacity of consciousness -- know that they exist?
A quick question:Iacchus said:
Does the shape of an object exist indepently of an object?
The answer is No, the shape exists because the object.
The Four Fundamental Forces are the same, they exist because matter exists.
The Forces (i.e. not Laws) were derived mathematically by humans, then given names by humans. Humans were the ones who "instituted" the concepts behind the forces.
The 4 Fundmental Forces would exist regardless of whether you were aware of them or not.
You have answered nothing here.Yahweh said:
No, the forces -- "or laws" -- have always been there. On the other hand, what we conceive of them, and apply labels to, does not change that.
You see, you yourself said it right here.
However, if we were not conscious, we would not be able to acknowledge them for the laws that they really are. Which, is another way of saying intelligence (through consciousness) tends to recognize the "inherent intelligence" behind "the design."
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
Humans not being able to acknowledge something is completely different from that something not existing.
Or in other words
We don't have to be around for something to exist.
Or in other words
We don't have to be around for something to exist.
Continuation of thread derailment
Back to the original questions:
That is not a Yes or No type answer, the question does not make sense.
It would be like someone saying "I enjoy sunsets in the summer", and you responding "Do the sunsets clean up after themselves". The question is framed to be answered as "Yes" or "No', but regardless of the framing the question makes no sense.
To answer your second question:
Humans instituted the laws. (I would not normally use the word "institute" or "laws", I'm just trying to maintain parallelism with your post.)
You said:
"Near as I can tell it must have something to do with consciousness, otherwise how could I -- except through the capacity of consciousness -- know that they exist?"
I responded:
"The forces would continue to exist whether you are aware of them or not".
My annotated response would sound like this:
You are incorrect in assuming the existence of the Four Fundamental Forces has anything to do with being aware of them. The Four Fundamental Forces would have and will continue to exist regardless of whether you are aware/acknowledge them or not.
Iacchus said:
Back to the original questions:
To answer your first question:
That is not a Yes or No type answer, the question does not make sense.
It would be like someone saying "I enjoy sunsets in the summer", and you responding "Do the sunsets clean up after themselves". The question is framed to be answered as "Yes" or "No', but regardless of the framing the question makes no sense.
To answer your second question:
Humans instituted the laws. (I would not normally use the word "institute" or "laws", I'm just trying to maintain parallelism with your post.)
Banana Tomato Papaya.
You are putting words in my mouth that I dont agree with.You see, you yourself said it right here.
Irregardless if we were not conscious, we would not be able to acknowledge them for the laws that they really are. Which, is another way of saying intelligence (through consciousness) tends to recognize the "inherent intelligence" behind "the design."
You said:
"Near as I can tell it must have something to do with consciousness, otherwise how could I -- except through the capacity of consciousness -- know that they exist?"
I responded:
"The forces would continue to exist whether you are aware of them or not".
My annotated response would sound like this:
You are incorrect in assuming the existence of the Four Fundamental Forces has anything to do with being aware of them. The Four Fundamental Forces would have and will continue to exist regardless of whether you are aware/acknowledge them or not.
evildave
Unregistered
E
I'm perfect: If you disagree, it's a flaw in your own imperfect perception.
It's all in the definition for what's "perfect".
It's all in the definition for what's "perfect".
evildave
Unregistered
E
Double-post. Looks like the forum's really, really slow.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Iacchus said:
What is the point of being god if you have to create something? Why would a perfect being give a DRA (dead rat's ass) about someother being aknowledging thier perfection?
What if the physical world is perfect as it is, and therefore perfect in it's imperfection.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
By dropping a brick on your foot, shocking yourself , etc.. You could believe that it was the angels that did these things and could still have them effect you. No consiousness required!Iacchus said:
Douglas Gasking (1911-1994) used this proof to show that non-existence is better than existence.
1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
7. Therefore God does not exist.
(Reference: Gasking's Proof', Analysis Vol 60, No 4 (2000), pp. 368-70.)
Is existence a property?
In respect to perfection as a concept, perhaps perfection can not exist. Since perfection is being everything, all-entailing, perfection is like being able to conceive of a squircle. You can conceive of a square, and a circle, but not square that is a circle and vice versa.